SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (93653)2/20/2003 12:20:53 AM
From: Enigma  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116764
 
No I haven't seen the 'evidence' but it has all of the appearence of a stunt. These things hardly ever go to Court as you must know. I don't know if Barrick has countersued - the problem for them is how do you quantify damages? So they might have to go to court, and IMO it might be a good thing to have the whole thing laid out and disproved. This could be a very expensive suit for Blanchard. In the meantime I notice that Barrick's share price seems to be increasing relative to Newmont - there must be an investment strategy to play - if you want to bet on the gap narrowing further? Maybe we'll see Barrick's share price overtake Newmont's in the next couple of years?



To: long-gone who wrote (93653)2/20/2003 6:18:28 PM
From: Enigma  Respond to of 116764
 
Proved/proven - which branch of the English language do you practice? There is a type of judgement in Scotland known as 'not proven' which means that there was not enough evidence to prove someone guilty, but the inference of guilt is there. I think you're speaking American?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News